In re Interest of A.D.S. and A.D.S

2 Citing cases

  1. In re Interest of Joelyann H

    574 N.W.2d 185 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 7 times

    See, e.g., In re Interest of A.D.S. and A.D.S., 2 Neb. App. 469, 511 N.W.2d 208 (1994) (failure to advise of rights pursuant to § 43-279.01 requires reversal, and remand for new hearing).

  2. In re Interest of Amanda H

    4 Neb. App. 293 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 12 times
    Holding father's motion to terminate jurisdiction should have been granted due to failure to recite factual basis for jurisdiction

    In In re Interest of N.M. and J.M., 240 Neb. 690, 484 N.W.2d 77 (1992), the Supreme Court stated that parents are deprived of due process by the trial court's failure to tell them of the possibility of the termination of their parental rights and advise them of their right to have counsel. In the case In re Interest of A.D.S. and A.D.S., 2 Neb. App. 469, 511 N.W.2d 208 (1994), this court held a parent's due process rights were violated when the parent was not given the explanation required under § 43-279.01(1), and the cause was remanded for a new adjudication hearing.